Johnny Ball on how he has been vilified

Maintained by bullying and bluster, the facade grows more brittle by the day, as heretics start to come out of the woodwork — being pragmatic, concerned, but unapologetic.

From the Daily Mail in the UK – Johnny Ball says Beware of the Global Warming Fascists. More evidence that this is a propaganda campaign, not a question of science (as if we needed that). Kudos to the Daily Mail for printing thousands of copies of this story. A hat-tip to Johnny Ball for being brave enough to face down the bullies.

In the past decade or so I’ve been mocked, vilified, besmirched — I’ve even been booed off a theatre stage — simply for expressing the view that the case for global warming and climate change, and in particular the emphasis on the damage caused by carbon dioxide, the so-called greenhouse gas that is going to do for us all, has been massively over-stated.

And something very similar has happened to Dr David Bellamy, who has never been shy about expressing his belief that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon. His media career, particularly in television, has suffered as a result.

Why should speaking about science come with such a price:

As someone who has dedicated his life to popularising science and mathematics for young people, I find it hard — hurtful even — to be cast in the role of villain. I’m also aware that many of the people who have been kind enough to enjoy my TV programmes over the years are surprised to hear me — nice, cheery, Johnny Ball — expressing such strong and arguably provocative views.

He explains how he came to them — essentially by starting with the hard numbers on renewable energy. He wanted to do a show on them, but try as he might, the numbers never added up.

If it costs 2.3p to produce one unit of electricity using gas, it costs 2.5p to produce the same electricity using nuclear energy and perhaps 2.9p using coal. Using wind power, the cost is an astonishing 9.8p.

In the face of such figures, most reasonable people interested in cleaner, sustainable energy would surely go off and build carbon-free, nuclear power stations or gas-fuelled ones.

He fears for the children:

I don’t make television programmes any more, but I do still visit 80-100 schools a year and I know what children are taught about climate change, and what the result is. They accept it absolutely and will solemnly tell you that they always turn off lights, close doors and, at school, have installed solar panels on the roof.

They tell me how worried they are about global warming, rising sea-levels and, having seen alarmist films such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, the imminent prospect of all human life being wiped out.

And this breaks my heart. I want children to be excited about the future, not cowed by it. I want them to grow up in a world which is going to be better than the one their parents knew, not significantly worse. I want them to grow up excited by technology and new inventions, not worrying about where the electricity is going to come from to power them.

Ultimately this is a PR war, and the skeptics must not be allowed to speak. (Even believers know that the public faith will evaporate if they hear the skeptics).

People have a right to know the truth, but it’s so difficult to break the strangle-hold the global warming gang have on the debate. David Bellamy can’t get on television and I can’t even get a ten-minute meeting with the controller of Radio 4.

What a strange era the Great Carbon Scare will appear to be in history books a Century from now.

64 comments to Johnny Ball on how he has been vilified

So Johnny Ball gets vilified for standing up for John Bull – who ends up paying (dearly) for the climate fantasies beloved by HM Government and Royal Family.

I have wondered whether HM Government would be so enamoured with “climate catastrophes” and windmills erected to “prevent” them (somehow) if Prince Charles weren’t such a quack. I suppose we’ll never know.

Since RealClimate.com is U.S. funded, and operated on U.S. government time by U.S. paid propagandists, can’t someone here in the U.S. sue for misuse of public funds? Government-run Web sites are not supposed to be partisan or involved in propaganda. Of course, the new White House Web site throws that tradition to the wind. It’s a nauseating paean to Obama, complete with his endless “official” deity photographs feating some kind of halo image around or behind his head.

I just read RCs comments on E&E’s request for an apology. It seems RC is utterly obsessed with protecting itself from criticism, and with attacking anyone who dares utter anything contrary to its religious orthodoxy. Not only did it go “public” with E&E’s request, but it tried to tie it in with the lax British libel system and curious examples (apples and oranges, as usual with RC), and then published a string of comments from the same old RC fanatic bloggers repeating the very same libels E&E is trying to stop. I believe E&E should go ahead and sue RC, but in the United States, on multiple fronts: for libel, for U.S. government interference in international trade, and for conspiracy to harm a legal business.

RC has got to be one of the nastiest, most bizarre Web sites I’ve come across. It’s little cabal of radical self-serving pseudoscientists behaving like school children is astounding. It’s a clique and rumor-mill rolled into one, and most amazing of all, it’s run by men: whining, gossiping, back-stabbing men, all of whom would do well on Ru Paul’s Drag Race.

Hopefully, there is no statute of limitations on (climate) fraud.
In a few more years, justice will be served and those that committed perjury as well as defrauding the public purse will be called to account for their actions.
The persecution of heretics (those that stood for new or unorthodox ideas)is a hallmark of agendized hierarchies, be they religious, political or other.
The prosecution of those that transgressed will lead to their serving time, and time will serve us all well.

That the BBC refuses to recognize Johnny Ball is probably more to do with economics than scientific acumen. .Some months ago James Delingpole of the Telegraph reported that the BBC pension fund had about £8 Billion invested in International Investors Group on Climate Change so they are not likely to welcome non-warmist views. Perhaps as interesting is that the Chairman IIGCC and the BBC head of pension investments is the same person – one Peter Dunscombe.

The greatest crime against humanity that Greenies and AGW thugs have perpetuated upon our society is the indoctrination of school children into their guilt and fear-based cult of self-contempt.

Ronald Reagan used to tell the story of two boys: a pessimist and an optimist. A psychologist put the pessimistic boy in a roomful of toys; he sat around morosely worried that if he played with the toys they would break and he would be blamed. He put the optimist in a room with a big pile of horse manure; the boy started eagerly digging. The psychologist asked why and the boy answered that with all that manure on the floor there had to be a pony in there somewhere.

Preachy, vindictive warmism taught to school children is abusive. Children should never be taught what to think, but rather HOW to think.

Warmism is based upon conformity to an orthodoxy. Warmism’s greatest foe is the individual who was bequeathed the cognitive tools and freedom to think for him or herself by a honest teacher.

That’s why Warmists are so full of angry intolerance. All they have is their dogma. Since it can’t stand the tests of rational inquiry, their only cognitive tools are blind indoctrination and collectivism animated by guilt, fear and odium.

We are creating a generation of creative cripples, a generation who believe they live in a finite world of limits, where rational thought building upon blue sky inspiration and the concept of human progress are nonsensical. A generation of victims, not bright-eyed and curious solution seekers.

Civilization dies from the inside out. Ours is in crisis. But it’s only an insurmountable crisis if we lobotomize the innovative potential of our youth. History is accelerating, hurling towards a totally uncharted future that can not be predicted. There is nothing new in that. As with every generation our only hope for the future is our children and the attitudes of hope, courage and optimism they’ll need to creatively rise to the challenges of the future.

One mind self-assured enough to dig for ponies is worth ten million zombies who ritually turn off the lights to huddle in darkness.

Isn’t it a pity that our mainstream papers are still so much in the thrall of the ludicrous theory of AGW that they wouldn’t print a piece like that of John Ball. Seems like the rest of the world is beginning to move on, the cracks starting to appear, but the Australian media are still holding tight. Their misplaced belief is effectively aiding and abetting this Govt’s attempts to shoot Australia in the economic foot, all so that a few of our pollies can appear ‘progressive’ on the international stage. It makes me angry when I consider what Helen Clark has done to NZ’s economy and its people, but it no doubt bought her next position in the UN. Pity she can’t be held to account, along with NIWA!

Johnny Ball was an inspiration to a whole generation of kids in the UK (mine included). He made them interested in science. Ditto David Bellamy on all things to do with nature – he too inspired children. We are now having a generation of kids brought up on propaganda and fear of the future. Those responsible for this state of affairs prefer to “save the planet” rather than the planet’s most precious resource; its children.

Love me unconditionally
Respect me unconditionally
Do what I say without question
If you do not, I will kill you
The central motivating impulse of the bully is fear of not being loved and its concomitant, fear of life. Such infantile emotions of course must be rationalized away and obliterated if the bully is to retain an acceptable self image (self love) as well as maintaining the image he/she wants others to see. For the fundamentally insecure bully the struggle to prevent a slide into anxiety and paralysis becomes a full time job.

PS
Well said Wes George @ #4
The fear fetish mob are remaking the civilization in their own image; fearfull, cowardly,incompetant to the task of leading society towards a vision inspiring,exiting and creative. these dystopians are such because they have failed to cultivate free flowing creativity within themselves. left to them alone they will reduce everything to dust.

Wes @ 4 said it more eloquently than I could. When I was growing up science programs were all about the wonderful human achievements and innovations… now it is all about doom & gloom and global catastrophes.

It does seem western society is headed down the tube but I stress western. China is enthusiastically embracing the future although it must be worrisome that it’s main market, the West, is broke and with new climate taxes less able to buy Chinese products. India is another with a bright future and considering that between them Chindia has nearly half the world population and that half is doing great.

When the leftoids in the West succeed in ruining our economies will they start on Chindia? Not likely. Even now neither China nor India accept AGW and thus will not reduce nor stop their emissions. They are of course pursuing nuclear with the aim of having cleaner skies. China’s use of windpower seems more a sales pitch to the ignorant in the west rather than a sensible power source for themselves.

O/T but how extraordinary, especially as we are on water restrictions already!

23 Feb: News Ltd: Southeast Queensland may face water restrictions after two water treatment plants were knocked out by lightning strikes
SOUTHEAST Queenslanders may be asked to conserve drinking water after lightning strikes knocked out two water treatment plants.
The primary and back-up automatic control systems at the two Mt Crosby plants were disabled in Monday’s fierce storms, forcing them to be operated manually for the first time in 20 years.
Water Grid spokesman, Barry Dennien, said the Gold Coast desalination plant and other treatment plants had taken over, but demand would have to be closely monitored, particularly through Tuesday night’s peak period.
Engineers were working on the Mt Crosby systems on Tuesday, but the damage was so bad, water conservation measures may be needed, he said…http://www.news.com.au/southeast-queensland-may-face-water-restrictions-after-two-water-treatment-plants-were-knocked-out-by-lightning-strikes/story-e6freon6-1226010288136

I hope Christine Milne introduces legislation that will help to alleviate the problem, like more solar panels for the Gold Coast, instead of doing wasteful things like adding desal capacity or electricity generation capacity.

Wow – fortunately there are always those who are ACTUALLY interested in what happened to Johnny Ball.

Brian G Valentine… maybe you could give your opinion on this Ballism?

“Carbon dioxide is half as heavy as air again. It falls to the ground and it feeds the plants.”

Or this FACT about getting booed off stage: from the man HIMSELF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLMUX6ePRnw
he was bloody 12 minutes over time and booring people to death.
“I brought it on myself, I was eating in to other peoples time, 12-13 minutes over time, they were taking everything I said and respecting that.”
NOTE: THE VIDEO (AS YOU”VE NOT BOTHERED WATCHING IT) IS AN INTERVIEW WITH MR BALL!!!

Rudd met with her once in his tenure and Gillared not one time. Maybe it is because they are both scientifically illiterate… also it is harder to lie and peddle pseudoscience with a straight face when you are actually informed about the facts.

What’s that old saying? When the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold!

I believe that the fight against man-made global warming hysteria is fast coming to an end. When I see what US politicians are now doing… people like Senator John Inhofe, reexamining the science, it sends a genuine message that the American people are not going to simply swallow the pseudo-science of the IPCC anymore.

When I see responses like this one, at the following link, it gives me hope that US politicians are serious, and are determined to understand the truth:

I sincerely believe, that if the US makes a determination that the IPCC mantra represents alarmist political propaganda, rather than good science, then that will be the beginning of the end of the great global warming con.

As presently constituted, earth’s atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400 ppm of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide or CO2. That’s only four-hundredths of one percent. Consequently, even if the air’s CO2 concentration was tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over one tenth of one percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than what wafted through earth’s atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, a small increase in this minuscule amount of CO2 is frequently predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, and the destruction of many natural ecosystems, as well as dramatic increases in extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes.
As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that combine to determine the state of earth’s climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did — which we don’t — could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future?
Some people answer these questions in the affirmative. However, as may be seen in the body of this report, real-world observations fail to confirm essentially all of the alarming predictions of significant increases in the frequency and severity of droughts, floods and hurricanes that climate models suggest should occur in response to a global warming of the magnitude that was experienced by the earth over the past two centuries as it gradually recovered from the much-lower-than-present temperatures characteristic of the depths of the Little Ice Age. And other observations have shown that the rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the development of the Industrial Revolution have actually been good for the planet, as they have significantly enhanced the plant productivity and vegetative water use efficiency of earth’s natural and agro-ecosystems, leading to a significant “greening of the earth.”
In the pages that follow, we present this oft-neglected evidence via a review of the pertinent scientific literature. In the case of the biospheric benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, we find that with more CO2 in the air, plants grow bigger and better in almost every conceivable way, and that they do it more efficiently, with respect to their utilization of valuable natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all of the animals and people that depend upon them for their sustenance.
Likewise, in the case of climate model inadequacies, we reveal their many shortcomings via a comparison of their “doom and gloom” predictions with real-world observations. And this exercise reveals that even though the world has warmed substantially over the past century or more — at a rate that is claimed by many to have been unprecedented over the past one to two millennia — this report demonstrates that none of the environmental catastrophes that are predicted by climate alarmists to be produced by such a warming has ever come to pass. And this fact — that there have been no significant increases in either the frequency or severity of droughts, floods or hurricanes over the past two centuries or more of global warming — poses an important question. What should be easier to predict: the effects of global warming on extreme weather events or the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on global temperature? The first part of this question should, in principle, be answerable; for it is well defined in terms of the small number of known factors likely to play a role in linking the independent variable (global warming) with the specified weather phenomena (droughts, floods and hurricanes). The latter part of the question, on the other hand, is ill-defined and possibly even unanswerable; for there are many factors — physical, chemical and biological — that could well be involved in linking CO2 (or causing it not to be linked) to global temperature.
If, then, today’s climate models cannot correctly predict what should be relatively easy for them to correctly predict (the effect of global warming on extreme weather events), why should we believe what they say about something infinitely more complex (the effect of a rise in the air’s CO2 content on mean global air temperature)? Clearly, we should pay the models no heed in the matter of future climate — especially in terms of predictions based on the behavior of a non-meteorological parameter (CO2) — until they can reproduce the climate of the past, based on the behavior of one of the most basic of all true meteorological parameters (temperature). And even if the models eventually solve this part of the problem, we should still reserve judgment on their forecasts of global warming; for there will yet be a vast gulf between where they will be at that time and where they will have to go to be able to meet the much greater challenge to which they aspire.

The United Nations has long courted celebrities for its peace-keeping and anti-poverty efforts, from Mia Farrow and Ricky Martin to George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.

It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Hollywood stars grasp at gravitas; the U.N. pushes for publicity.

Now the beleaguered multi-national agency, fresh from a disappointing round of climate negotiations in Cancun, wants something more concrete: actual story lines in movies, television and social media drawing attention to the dangers of global warming.

It really makes you wonder! Surely, if the IPCC wants to win over everybody, it only has to produce the empirical evidence that CO2 emissions from human activity is causing catastrophic global warming. Heck, after twenty years of searching, and the billions of dollars spent, it’s not too unreasonable a request.

I guess they remember the global impact of “An Inconvenient Truth’… so now they think it can happen all over again!

I see a growing desperation from a global power-group and their ‘useful idiot’ robot-followers that only respond to one set of formulae. All dissenters are now to be vilified and publicly humiliated. This is fundamentalism, and because they are challenged on their logic, and have discarded the pretense of free, divergent views and debate that define our democracy, are resorting to the tactics of a cornered rat.

Wow – fortunately there are always those who are ACTUALLY interested in what happened to Johnny Ball.

Brian G Valentine… maybe you could give your opinion on this Ballism?

“Carbon dioxide is half as heavy as air again. It falls to the ground and it feeds the plants.”

Here’s the facts:

“Feeds the plants”: This is demonstrably true — this is why commercial greenhouse operators use CO2 generators and maintain much higher concentrations than in the atmosphere in general.

“Carbon dioxide is half as heavy as air again”: The atmosphere consists mainly of 20% O2 (molecular weight = 32) and 80% N2 (molecular weight = 28). Hence the average molecular weight of air is 0.2*32+0.8*28 = 28.8 . The molecular weight of CO2 is 12+16+16 = 44, which is 1.52777 times 28.8 . QED. (You need to brush up on your middle school science.)

“falls to the ground”: Technically, it diffuses to the ground as plants absorb it. That is does so is demonstrated by the rapid, large seasonal changes in CO2 concentrations that follow the summer/winter plant cycle of the N. hemisphere.

Here’s my opinion:
Apparently, Mr. Ball knows much more about CO2 than you.

Yes, lack of rational thought is a serious problem for the world. I see this with my college math students. See the new book, “Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living”. Rational thinking starts with clearly stated principles, continues with logical deductions, and then examines empirical evidence to possibly modify the principles.

Anyway, as far as I can see, AGW is real, and it is irresponsible for any science commentator to rattle off the usual pseudoscience which passes for skeptical thought these days.

Believe me when I say that nobody here entertains any doubt that this is your belief. What we have been waiting for, in vain, is some evidence that said belief is true that goes beyond “Authorities told me so”.

Bob C – wow so you think Co2 falls to the ground to feed the plants. bzzt fail. As they say over at Deltoid… how do all those plants grow at altitude, if the CO2 falls to the ground. LOL. Talk about defending the indefensible.

Bob C – wow so you think Co2 falls to the ground to feed the plants. bzzt fail.

So, you have a reading comprehension problem? What I said was the CO2 diffuses to the ground, as plants deplete the concentration there.

As they say over at Deltoid… how do all those plants grow at altitude, if the CO2 falls to the ground. LOL.

So, I guess it would explain a lot about Deltoid (and you, perhaps) that you believe that plants that grow “at altitude” are not on the ground. (I live at 5,600 feet — funny I never noticed my house was a mile about the ground before )

Talk about defending the indefensible.

Seems to be a self-description, except in your case it should be modified to “defending the inane”.

BTY: CO2 will (because of it’s density w.r.t. the atmosphere) “fall” to the ground, in the absence of other mixing modalities such as wind-driven turbulence and convection currents. There are places in the Western Rift Valley (in E. Africa) where “puddles of Carbon Dioxide form overnight [in hollows and low-lying ground] while the air is still”. Animals (and people) who wander into these lakes of CO2, before the morning wind disperses them, are often killed. Description here (on a pro-CAGW website, so that should make you happy).

As noted, Matt, the distribution of CO2 in the air is stratified, resulting from the increased molecular weight. Of course gravity influences everything in the same way, although temperature decreases with altitude and the speeds of molecules are proportional to the (absolute) temperature and inversely proportional to the (square root of the) molecular weight. Thus the distribution of molecules is skewed such that molecules with higher molecular weight have a higher proportion at higher temperature.

The diffusivity is proportional to the concentration gradient, although the temperature gradient in the atmosphere is adverse to the diffusion gradient, to the point where the decrease in atmospheric temperature with altitude no longer provides a diffusion gradient driving force of concentration.

Winds have (virtually) no influence, of course, as average molecular speeds are of the order of the speed of sound in the air.

One day you’ll wake up in the morning, Matt, and have an “Archimedes moment” and run through the streets (with your clothing on) shouting your revelation that CO2 in the air has about a nil influence on the global climate, compared with all of the other influences. Somebody will record a video of this event and put it on youtube

As far as i am concerned, it is a “sin tax” and the price to pay for being human and alive.

Let’s face it. A carbon tax will be passed down the food chain to those who cannot pass the tax along any more. Meaning that everyone who produces something will pass their share of the tax down to the consumer, who can’t pass it to anyone any more.

This idiotic but obvious observation will be noticed all too soon by those eager to impose it. There will remain a long hard road to travel reversing the damage from this dreadful mistake that anyone brighter than a platypus can see before the damage has been done

Believe me when I say that nobody here entertains any doubt that this is your belief. What we have been waiting for, in vain, is some evidence that said belief is true that goes beyond “Authorities told me so”.

You won’t find it from me. It is not my area of expertise. Much as you guys hate it, I’m going to rely on the actual experts (Authorities). Just like I do when I drive my car, fly in a plane, go to the dentist, buy a computer, and do all of the things for which I don’t have the necessary expertise, but others do. When we stopped being hunter gatherers, we started relying on the expertise of others.

Much as you guys hate it, I’m going to rely on the actual experts (Authorities).

Can’t get away from it that easily, John. You still have to decide who the authorities are — if you just believe someone else who tells you who the authorities are, you have to decide to believe that person — and if you take some other person’s word to believe that person, you have to decide to believe that person … (and Infinite Regress).

My guess is you don’t have a clue why you make the decisions you make, or whether you are being exploited.

When we stopped being hunter gatherers, we started relying on the expertise of others.

Now you have genuinely got me puzzled, John.

We stopped being hunter gatherers because we started to farm. Are you saying that it takes more expertise to farm than to survive as a hunter-gatherer? That Humans had to learn farming from “others”, because they weren’t expert enough? What are you trying to say here?

People who work at hunting and gathering until they can make a living at it become experts in that. People who work at farming until they can make a living at it become experts in farming. People who write climate models that can’t predict the future and learn to get large government grants to support their work become experts in that. If I wanted to make a living writing useless climate models I would definitely look them up for advice. If I want to know what the climate is likely to do in the future, I would look instead for people who have a track record of successful predictions of future climate (say, the people who write the “Old Farmer’s Almanac”, or more recently these folks).

John, seriously in a way that I currently cannot explain, I kinda like you. I hear you like beer and MattB and I have settled upon an agreement that we could have a pint together. I’ll extend the olive branch (although olive makes shi*y beer) to you under the same terms.

But you say:

You won’t find it from me. It is not my area of expertise. Much as you guys hate it, I’m going to rely on the actual experts (Authorities). Just like I do when I drive my car, fly in a plane, go to the dentist, buy a computer, and do all of the things for which I don’t have the necessary expertise, but others do. When we stopped being hunter gatherers, we started relying on the expertise of others. arrived at

So you have an expert drive your car (OK good for you) I can drive a car expertly.
Flying a plane (OK fair enough) but I can fly a plane.
Dentist? I KNOW I could do dentistry (not legally but I’m confident you’d barely notice the difference.)
Buy a computer? c’mon is that really hard for you?

On hunting and gathering, you should know that these both REQUIRE expert assistants to be successful. I suggest you seek more expert help and get additional education on the life of hunter gatherers.

Lastly, you drink beer, I make beer. (of course I expertly drink it too) YOU NEED ME.

Were not the hunter-gatherers dependent on others (their elders) to learn their survival skills?

That you choose blindly to follow your (chosen) authorities doesn’t arouse anger in me JB, you’re not worth the loss of equanimity or rise in blood pressure. I can only wonder how far your living standards would have to drop before the scales fall from your eyes.

Much as you guys hate it, I’m going to rely on the actual experts (Authorities). Just like I do when I drive my car, fly in a plane, go to the dentist, buy a computer, and do all of the things for which I don’t have the necessary expertise, but others do. When we stopped being hunter gatherers, we started relying on the expertise of others.

So with your lack of expertise, how do you know who is an expert anyhow? I presume you just depend on the first person who comes past and calls themselves an expert. In which case, I so happen to be an expert in real-estate sales, specializing in bridges. Wanna buy one?

Much as you guys hate it, I’m going to rely on the actual experts (Authorities). Just like I do when I drive my car, fly in a plane, go to the dentist, buy a computer, and do all of the things for which I don’t have the necessary expertise, but others do. When we stopped being hunter gatherers, we started relying on the expertise of others.

Kind of reminds me of the day I was sitting in this bar next to these Hells Angels. Anyway I get into a conversation with one of them about nothing in particular and he asks me if I had ever thought about joining the Hells Angels. I told him “No I’ve always had a problem with authority”. He starts laughing is @ss off and buys me a beer.

I’m not very impressed with E&E’s actions. Why would a scientific journal descend into the gutter with the Hockey Stick Team?

Say what!?

The RealClimate.com (RC) propoganda web site libeled the journal and you are “not very impressed” by the journal demanding a retraction of the libel?

What do you think the journal should do when this happens: lie back and think of England?

For decades AGW-alarmists have been getting away with lies and smears of anybody who questions the unthinking dogma that is promoted on this thread by Matt B and John Brookes. Those alarmists (n.b. not Matt B and John Brookes) have destroyed carears of several people (including John Ball and David Bellamy.) And the ‘climategate’ emails prove the self-titled “Team” which runs RC has attacked journals (including E&E) such that the “Team” has usurped some journals (but not E&E).

RC published defamatory and demonstrably untrue libels of E&E. And the publisher of E&E has the gonads to demand a retraction that concluded by saying

At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate. I’m quite happy to work with you to find a mutually satisfactory form of words: I appreciate you might find it difficult.

But you say you are say you are “not very impressed” by this demand for a retraction.

Frankly, I am not very impressed by your comment.

Richard

PS To avoid troll red-herring posts, I declare an interest in that I am a Member of the ditorial Board of E&E.